Should I upgrade my processor and/or motherboard?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

tecwhizz

Honorable
Dec 8, 2012
79
0
10,640
Hi,

I currently run an MSI AMD HD7850, and am thinking of upgrading to an R9 280X or R9 290 to give myself a little extra pep on the graphics front. I was running a couple of tests and on a game I ran my GPU usage was averaging about 97%, and my CPU 45-50%.

Obviously the GPU upgrade would be useful, but would it also be good to upgrade my Core i5-3330 CPU, it was lower-end when I got it and it's not so great now. My mobo is currently an Asus P8B75-V, with a 1155 chipset, so would it be worth upgrading the mobo to a Haswell chipset and getting a Haswell CPU if I were to upgrade the chip?

The price per GHz seems to be weighted positively towards Haswell on higher speed chips, but is roughly equal on lower speed chips, but I know that clock speed isn't everything. I might be tempted to get an i7, so long as the difference between i5 and i7 is worth the extra cost of i7. I would also have to factor in the price of a new mobo that is comparable to my current one if I were to switch from IB to Haswell.

Thanks for your answers.
 
Solution
geofelt
Task manager might show activity on all 4 threads. But, that could be windows distributing the activity of one task among 4 threads.
A haswell core will be perhaps 20% more effective per core than your ivy bridge cpu.
If you go haswell and clock higher, you will do better from the tests you have done.

For better cpu, here is a perhaps off the wall idea:
Look at the new pentium G2358. $75. As a haswell dual core chip it can be overclocked. It looks like 4.5 to 4.8 is the range. Why not buy a Z97 based motherboard and try it out in your situation. If it does not work out, you are out $75 which can be easily reclaimed on ebay.
A 4690K or 4790K could be the replacement with an overclock.

I am doubtful that vram is much of a...
Sort by date Sort by votes
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,291
4,145
174,240
Your test indicates to me that your i5-3330 still has legs.
I think I would upgrade graphics first.
If you do, make it the big jump to a R9-290X or a GTX780.
Otherwise you may be disappointed if you don't see a big improvement.
Then see how you do.

There are no useful cpu upgrades for your motherboard which does not allow overclocking.

If you want a cpu upgrade, look for a Z97 based motherboard and a 4690K

If you want to get an idea of the benefit of faster cores, here is a backhanded test.

Limit your cpu, either by reducing the OC, or, in windows power management, limit the maximum cpu% to something like 70%.
Go to control panel/power options/change plan settings/change advanced power settings/processor power management/maximum processor state/
This will simulate what a lack of cpu power will do.
Conversely what a 30% improvement might do.

An I7 gains you 4 hyperthreads. For most games, it is the first 2-3 cores that matter.
You could also experiment with removing one core in the bios. This will tell you how sensitive your games are to the benefits of many cores.


 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Steel_Nugget

Steel_Nugget

Honorable
Dec 5, 2013
785
0
11,060
Since you have a 1155 motherboard I'd recommend a I5 3570k or non K for gaming. The new I5 4690k shouldn't show that much of an increase but you should look at benchmarks for the types of thing you do with you're PC. Eg. Game benchmarks. If this is a gaming PC you won't see much from a I7 since most games don't use Hyper Threading so again look at benchmarks.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
T

tecwhizz

Honorable
Dec 8, 2012
79
0
10,640
Mind TS2014 is quite demanding at times. The test was run at high quality, and there is one notch of detail above that and some more anti-aliasing and filtering options above that. I also have another game that lags, but neither the CPU nor the GPU were maxing out, but I have a feeling that the stuttering might be caused by low VRAM, and I would get more with a better card.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,291
4,145
174,240
Task manager might show activity on all 4 threads. But, that could be windows distributing the activity of one task among 4 threads.
A haswell core will be perhaps 20% more effective per core than your ivy bridge cpu.
If you go haswell and clock higher, you will do better from the tests you have done.

For better cpu, here is a perhaps off the wall idea:
Look at the new pentium G2358. $75. As a haswell dual core chip it can be overclocked. It looks like 4.5 to 4.8 is the range. Why not buy a Z97 based motherboard and try it out in your situation. If it does not work out, you are out $75 which can be easily reclaimed on ebay.
A 4690K or 4790K could be the replacement with an overclock.

I am doubtful that vram is much of a performance issue. Read this:
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
T

tecwhizz

Honorable
Dec 8, 2012
79
0
10,640
I don't think I can get the Pentium yet on my side of the pond, I'm just thinking that for all the expenditure on new mobos and chips, would there actually be any performance boost? If I'm only using 45-50% CPU under load (even if that is weighted towards C1) then I still have a little elbow room. My current mobo seems to be doing fine, even if it is a little old and is only a B75. I've no requirement for 8 DIMM slots or two dozen PCIe slots (yet, at least!) I'll probably satisfy myself with a new graphics card and a new monitor to allow me use my now aging 5 year old LG as my second monitor and allow me to scrap my near-ancient 7 or 8 year old AOC which I was using as a second monitor.

Thanks for all you advice anyhow.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,291
4,145
174,240
My guess is that your game is single threaded.
That is very common for older games, and strategy sims.
Civ2, I know is single threaded. It shows only 50% usage on a duo in task manager.
It is not a performance problem for civ2, just a poorly and simply coded game.

At the other end of the spectrum, civ5 can use only one core and perhaps part of another. I see turns taking 20 seconds showing 25%-30% busy on a very fast quad. A clue is seeing relatively even utilization across all 4 cores.

Regardless, a graphics card upgrade is always a good idea. If nothing else, it allows you to use more eye candy. Such an upgrade is easily transferred to a new build in the future.

A big upgrade to a R9-290 or 280X class graphics card is good. Anything else, and you may be disappointed if you do not see a nice improvement.
I have recently done some research and am not too enthusiastic about the latest R9 cards.
They seem to have more than their share of problems.
You might want to read this:
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Failure-Rates-by-Generation-563/
I might look at a GTX770 or GTX780 instead. EVGA would be my preferred brand.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
T

tecwhizz

Honorable
Dec 8, 2012
79
0
10,640
I looked at the game, turns out it wasn't VRAM issues that were causing a slowdown, it was the fact that I had accidentally turned off multi-core operation in the settings! I'm penny-pinching, and on my side of the pond at least the nvidea cards are a little more expensive than the AMDs. I would plump for an nvidea only if they were better than the AMD cards, the cheapest nvidea 770 is around £25, circa $43 more expensive than the cheapest AMD, but does have 1010Mhz more memory clock and 146Mhz higher core clock, with 65Mhz higher boost core clock. Are the increases worth paying more for, and worth the potential headaches of changing supplier?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,291
4,145
174,240
Worth is something only YOU can determine.

The specs like vram, clock rates shaders. etc are all folded into the overall performance of a graphics card. GTX770 and R9-280X are comparable cards from a performance point of view.
It takes a synthetic benchmark to tell the difference. In actual usage, you can't.

Mostly, you get what you pay for at any but the very top levels.
My sense is that most prefer the Nvidia drivers if that makes any difference to you.
At one time I had a 7850. It was ok with some early driver issues.


My unscientific test to gauge satisfaction is to go to newegg and look at the most popular example of a card. I filter to get feedback only from verified owners. Then I look at the percentage of unsatisfied owners. That is, 0 or 1 egg.
The evga GTX770 superclock has 231 reviews of which 8% are unfavorable.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130921
The most popular R9-280X was the ASUS R9280X-DC2T-3GD5
It had 198 reviews of which 34% were negative.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121803

Look at the exact reasons for the negative reviews. Sometimes they have nothing to do with quality and can be user error. I have not done this.

My take is to use a nvidia card at this time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Steel_Nugget

Steel_Nugget

Honorable
Dec 5, 2013
785
0
11,060
I heard ASUS isn't a good idea for AMD GPUs (Not sure why) but I own a HD 7970 with the reference cooler clocked higher then a R9 280x so a bit faster but basically the same card and had no problems with drivers. This is my personal experience. I do have to admit that Nvidia has a more simplified and easy to use software that is great.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom